EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum


0 points
0 points
0 points
8 points
KetuvimKetuvim (OG)
Firstly, I want to make myself clear, though I do not agree with abortion, there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable. That being rape, incest, and medical issues. However, having an abortion "just because", or "I don't want to have to take care of my kid", then it is no different than murder. This type of thinking, is the same type of thinking that the feminists are using to justify abortion, they are not justifying it in rape, incest, or medical issues only, they are trying to say that it is OK in any circumstance.

Back during the bronze age of around 3,000-1,000 B.C.E., there was a popular Sumerian religion that worshiped Baal. People would sacrifice their babies to Baal via cooking them alive (getting cooked alive, sounds familiar doesn't it).
Archaeologists wondered how mothers could have their children be cooked alive, and they came to the conclusion, that they were able to have this detestable act done, because they did not consider their babies to be a living human, now this should sound very familiar.

So, no one is arguing that women shouldn't have control of their bodies, they are entitled to complete control over their bodies, however, I am arguing that a fetus is a living human also, and hence is ALSO entitled to complete control over their body, which includes the right not to be cooked alive.
So if you want to argue that women should have control over their bodies, you must argue that babies must have control over their bodies. It is two separate bodies, and hence the baby has rights too, separate from the mother.

Point 1: a fetus is alive:
Now, I will be arguing that a fetus is a living human, and by definition, it is, let's look at the definition of life according to Websters dictionary:
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Please note, nowhere in this definition will you see "took a first breath", and all of these definitions, a fetus fits, it can grow, it will be able to reproduce eventually, it will be able to preform functional activity, and it will continue to change until death.

According to biology, life has these characteristics:
1. Grows and develops (check)
2. Capable of reproduction (check)
3. Consumes and uses energy (check)
4. Responds to stimuli (check)

Point 2: a fetus is NOT a clump of cells:
So, I have established that a fetus is alive, now I will establish that it is not a clump of cells, calling a fetus a "clump of cells" is mind boggling, no scientific mind would look at a fetus, and say "meh- it's a bag of cells", calling it a clump of cells is inherently wrong, a fetus is not a clump of cells any more than you or I are clumps of cells.

Because a "clump" suggests that it has no form or organization, a fetus cannot be considered a "clump of cells", because a fetus's cells has organization, and all those cells are working for the survival of the rest of the "clump", hence, the correct term would be a "system of cells", just like you or me.

Point 3: A fetus is a human:
This is very easy to prove, if you sample a fetus's DNA, and test it, what will you find? The genetic material comes from a human, not a baboon, or a buffalo, or a "clump of cells", a HUMAN.
Problem solved, it's genetics are human genetics, it's a human, what else?
It's dad is a human, it's mom is a human, they aren't ducks are they? So, it would logically follow, that their child will be---- A HUMAN! It cannot be a clump of cells, the dad isn't a clump of cells, the mom isn't a clump of cells, so, logically their offspring will be a human, not a clump of cells.
If I get a duck, and another duck, and I breed them, they will give birth to a duck, same with gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc, they will give birth to gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc.
So, if two humans get together, the only logical outcome, is that their offspring will be a human, NOT a clump of cells.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-02 21:06:34
| Speak Round
Lord FarnyLord Farny (OO)
Since Ketuvim has already established that fetuses are indeed human, I ask you to consider this: would you ever take an innocent human being's life? This poses an interesting concept that has been much discussed. I believe that abortion should be a moral choice made by the parent, and it is not the government's job to stop them. However, it is an act that would be morally frowned upon. If there was one important person's life in danger, and the only way you could stop their death was by sacrificing someone else and having them take the bullet, would you do it? Do you have the right to play God, and take away someone's life in exchange for a benefit that you think is more important than that person's life? What if the important man was a national hero, and the person sacrificed has to be your mother? Would that change your views? When you have an abortion, you are sacrificing your child for your own happiness. If you are perfectly content with this, please proceed to have your abortion.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-03 00:24:34
| Speak Round
condeelmastercondeelmaster (CO)
The problem here is determining if a fetus is a human or not. If a fetus is a human, then obviously abortion is wrong, abortion would be murder. But, as a matter of fact,  a fetus is not a human.

Let's observe what differences humans. Humans have consciousnes, that's the human essence. Humans are aware, they can reason and philosophize. That's the human definition: reasoning animals. Look at the definitions of human by Plato, or Aristotle, or Freud, or Darwin, or Erickson, the y all agree with this. But what enables us to be that? What enables us to reason? The brain.

Our brain is what makes us capable of reasoning, is what makes us humans in the first place. Then to know if something is human you have to see if it has a brain and if it has brain activity (because having a non functioning brain is like not having a brain).

"The thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. " (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/)

Then, we can say that a non born baby becomes a human by the third trimester.

Therefore, a abortion is wrong when it happens after this. So, before this moment, abortion is not wrong. 
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-18 17:21:31
| Speak Round
condeelmastercondeelmaster (CO)
This debate was weird. Mistakes of position, forfeitures, etc. However, as I showed on my previous argument, abortion is not wrong because a fetus is not a human. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-18 17:23:53
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Uh....how do I vote on this?
Posted 2016-02-18 22:02:15
And fixed :)

No worries @Lord Farny, stuff like that happens XD
Posted 2016-02-05 03:04:32
Lord FarnyLord Farny
Oh whoops lmao
Posted 2016-02-05 02:55:32
Howdy. Seems to be some error with the sign-ups of this debate. Am fixing immediately. :)

Yes, OG and OO are opposed positions.

And that multiple-comment thing happens when somebody accidentally submits their comment several times. That's a long-term bug.
Posted 2016-02-05 02:52:50
Wasn't Lord Farny supposed to debate against Ketuvim instead of in favour of him?? Aren't OG and OO opposed positions????
Posted 2016-02-03 15:23:46
3 times the same coment..... illuminati?? hahahah
Posted 2016-02-03 00:06:22
@Ketuvim your arguments are so badly worded it's a wonder anyone bothers to read them....
Posted 2016-02-02 23:05:33
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-02-18 22:45:20
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
2016-02-19 05:20:15
IncorrigiblePerspectiveJudge: IncorrigiblePerspective
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
2016-02-19 14:22:30
lannan13Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
2016-02-19 18:07:14
BifurcationsJudge: Bifurcations
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
The main problem with this debate was no one really understood what they had to prove in order to win. This is in part an issue with the motion just being "Abortion". There was also a misunderstanding of terminology, for example "a foetus is human/not human". The word foetus is just a medically descriptive term to explain how developed an embryo is irrespective of what species it is. Also the idea of "being human" and whether that is genetically human or consciously human makes for a very confusing mis-clash of arguments. That was the debate that was presented however so I will give my justification in respect to the arguments made.
What OG proves is that a human foetus by virtue of existing has the potential for life (it is in some sense a live being) and therefore it is wrong to abort it. This argument lacks nuance in light of your concession at the beginning of the debate that there are some instances in which abortion is acceptable however there is no analysis to explain where that distinction lies. I think because of your concessions at the start you understand that if there would be harm to the mother or baby, or the potential of the babies life is diminished then it is acceptable to abort that life. However that distinction is lost in the rest of your substantive case which makes your argument weaker. This allows CO to claim that the distinction is when consciousness begins (at which point there is the potential to comprehend pain and surroundings) and therefore it is justifiable to abort before that stage. This allows CO to provide the clearest and most believable analysis on when abortion is acceptable or not. The reason OO does not achieve this is because the majority of the claims made are either asserted or posed as a question. This is stylistically helpful however if there is no discussion on what the answer to the question posed is or why that answer proves that abortion is acceptable or not means you have not provided anything to uniquely convinced people you are correct. However one of the strongest and most relevant ideas is asserted in your speech: the right of the government to override parental authority. But it is never explained in a way that I can say you have proven that argument to be true, important and better than the other arguments within the debate.

OG: In most cases it is not that people do not consider the foetus to be human thus making it justifiable to abort but rather that they consider the potential of the life of that child if it were to be born would be so diminished that the child would suffer and therefore to not abort would be cruel. There are certainly a minority of cases where people abort "just because" however that is a limited perspective on the situation as a whole and really diminishes the trauma that a lot of parents go through if they decide an abortion is necessary. To win this debate it is not necessary to prove that a human foetus s human but rather to weigh the perceived suffering to the potential good that life itself can have.

OO: I explained above why an argument is less persuasive even if it is rhetorically pleasing when it mostly consists of questions and assertions. To move past this firstly always explain why something is true even if that seems obvious, then explain why that argument being true proves why the motion being discussed should be proposed or opposed. This makes it much easier to show that you alone have won a debate with an argument that is believable because you have used analysis. I think it is unfortunate at the end or your case you are quite flippant when you say if a parent is ok with doing something equivalent to murder then go ahead because you deny and limit the experiences go people have been through abortions. This is something you have to be particularly aware of on an internet site because you never know the history that someone has had and by being flippant and impolite you firstly discourage people with relevant experiences from participating in these debates which is a loss for everyone because less knowledge of relevance is brought to the debate which can make the debate less effective. Secondly it does cause real stress to people who have been through the trauma of abortion to here it discussed in that manner and we should never want to hurt someone with the we discuss important issues (NOTE: this hurt is not the same as offence there for it is not censorship of ideas i am discussing just simply being empathetic in the way we discuss very personal topics)

CO: I think you do a decent job of responding to the debate that happens however I think it is perhaps an ineffective expression to claim "therefore a foetus is not human" being human is still a genetically determined biological species however it is implicit with your analysis that you are trying to claim that the ability to comprehend surroundings and emotions is a distinction that means we should not be able to abort after that point. I think this is a decently made argument that can be broadened by saying when a foetus can comprehend pain we are knowingly causing suffering if an abortion is carried out and provide a comparison to the perceived suffering that being born would entail. For example the baby would suffer severely from a medical condition or would suffer severely due to its home environment. Being able to compare your argument to another and prove why yours is stronger means that it is easier to convince more people you have won that debate.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2016-02-27 12:27:26
JD BaringJudge: JD Baring
Win awarded to: condeelmaster

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None